The site loads fine and the photo is excellent. But you should really find a graphic designer to help you, even a student.
The site loads fine and the photo is excellent. But you should really find a graphic designer to help you, even a student.
Marko - no frames on this site (I'm assuming you mean "html frames")... I used a code encryption routine that I've used for past sites with sensitive code, but html technology has overun that some, and site encryption is not as casually easy as it once was. I can likely dispense with that, but then why would you want to look at the code?
Because it's there, of course.
I can tell you one thing - there is no such thing as "code encryption" when it comes to html, just as there is no such thing as "sensitive code". Sensitive content, perhaps, but once you put it up on the web, it's not sensitive any more either. I don't know what do you use for creating your pages, but let me illustrate this point, and please forgive me if I come across as too blunt:
Font and center tags belong to the version of html that became obsolete in 1997, as does the rest of your code. 1997 was a web equvalent of 16th century at best. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with this as long as it is done properly and thoughtfully. But I just can't see that as "sensitive code" nor can I imagine why would anybody want to steal it.
And whatever "code encryption routine" you may be using, it is creating html frameset for you. And then very helpfully points to the "unprotected" version in case you don't have frames enabled!
To cut to the chase, do yourself a huge favour and discard the "code encription routine" or any other contraption like that - the simpler the code, the better and more efficient your site becomes. Both for you and for your visitors.
Understand guys, that this is a work in progress... Those who have written their own websites know that its a fair bit of work making it all come together so that it looks respectable on different systems.
Another point - Brian is right, making someone go to another page only to see "coming soon" or "under contstruction" is simply wasting your visitors' time and won't win you any fans. Better to make a link inactive and put a sentence to that effect right up front, if you feel you must.
But one simple fact of the web is: the entire Web is a perpetual work in progress and every single web site is permanently under construction. Restating the fact will only make you look out of touch.
Regards,
Three thoughts.....
1. It loads fine here.
2. Why bother encrypting the code? Even if you wrote it and consider it your masterwork whats gonna happen if someone does steal it? Its just code and I don't see anything it does special that can't be done by anyone else.
3. What Frank wrote.
(nice picture)
Your site loads fine here, but your images look allot better than the design of the site. Keep the design simpler so the design does not fight with the images or (as others said) work with a designer to work up something more elegant that works with the images rather than conflicting visually with them.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Marko - I'm not trying to debate the code. I agree, this site is written in 3.2 because that's the version I'm familiar with from the point of view of ease of writing, and editing and updating. I know that many of the 3.2 tags are deprecated in XHMTL and 4.01, but they still work. Eventually they may not, but for a simple site they accomplish what I need easily. The encryption stuff is old code that I had in a file - I started with an old file and worked from there, and you're right, there's no reason to keep it.
While the web design world wants to move on with more sophisticated product, the end result doesn't necessarily demand the latest code technology, just like large format photography. There are a great many sites, many with big brand names that are crap -visually, technically and on performance. Several of the texts I have on CSS and XHTML say the same thing - deprecated 3.2 code often does the job easier and across more platforms. Ultimately its how the content works on the computer that matters - not the code used to write it...
At some point in the future I will catch up with CSS and XHTML (nah, probably not
You're welcome Paul. You asked for an opinion. I presume that you wanted an honest one.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Paul, I'm not arguing the choice of code either. Proper 3.2 is in fact better than poorly implemented 4.01 unless web design itself is what you want to showcase. What I am arguing for is simplicity and what I am arguing against is various doodads that don't contribute anything to the site and take away a lot.
You needn't go into CSS to make your site simple and efficient, just do what you can, do it right, do no more and do no less, and you'll be fine.
Good luck,
Paul,
This site is looking good!
I can load it fine and navigate it easily from where I am.
I can only echo a few thoughts by others:
1) For me, the colors used on the into page are a bit off. They are maybe a bit "South Beach" for my taste, but then I am pretty conservative. While I am not familiar with your work, if you photograph landscape ( like the lovely sample image) then perhaps think about using colors with a more natural tone in your site. The colors should compliment your images, not work against them.
2) The intro logo seems to fuzzy. I know you were going for that "feel" but remember, you only have one chance to make a good first impression. When someone visits the site, don't make them question their eyesite, montior settings or anything else. Think about changing this to make it sharp and stand out, the 'fuzzy" makes it fade into the background.
3) I like your intro background image, it is a very neat idea. But does it invite the visitor into your site and encourage them to look around and spend time? Maybe if you used one or more of your lovely images on the intro you might make a better statement about who you are and what you enjoy photographing.
4) Throughout the site you use some bold colors in the text, once again if you want to use colors I think they should complement your work, not standout against them. As a viewer, I want my attention on the images you have on the site, not drawn away by the bold colors or font of the text.
It is looking great, keep up the good work and I look forward to visiting when it is all done and I can see more of your work.
Thanks for sharing.
Eric
www.ericbiggerstaff.com
for Marko and the others concerned about the encryption code - its gone.
For Brian, the buttons for the pages under construction now say so, and are inactive.
I can only echo a few thoughts by others:
1) For me, the colors used on the into page are a bit off. They are maybe a bit "South Beach" for my taste, but then I am pretty conservative. While I am not familiar with your work, if you photograph landscape ( like the lovely sample image) then perhaps think about using colors with a more natural tone in your site. The colors should compliment your images, not work against them.
2) The intro logo seems to fuzzy. I know you were going for that "feel" but remember, you only have one chance to make a good first impression. When someone visits the site, don't make them question their eyesite, montior settings or anything else. Think about changing this to make it sharp and stand out, the 'fuzzy" makes it fade into the background.
Everybody's reaction to the colours and the "fuzziness" of the logo is identical to mine after I first did it. But after living with it a bit, I personally, have come to like it (file under "no accounting for taste..."), so not sure yet what I'm going to do, if anything, about it. There is a disjunct between the scheme and the fall scene, agreed. I am wrestling with how to present a fairly eclectic photographic style. It may be that the site may have to go in two very different directions early to accomodate different photographic approaches. The colour scheme is something of an experiment. I like the black background for colour prints (it doesn't work, for me, for B&W...), but I don't like white print. I wanted the headings, web elements to be subdued, hence the fairly dark blue text. I frankly don't like white web pages that have not been designed to be white space managed.
3) I like your intro background image, it is a very neat idea. But does it invite the visitor into your site and encourage them to look around and spend time? Maybe if you used one or more of your lovely images on the intro you might make a better statement about who you are and what you enjoy photographing.
This was an afterthought - and I have had the same thought - perhaps rotating a treatment of the "photo du jour" through this spot. I am thinking about adding a second image that is the changeable one.
4) Throughout the site you use some bold colors in the text, once again if you want to use colors I think they should complement your work, not standout against them. As a viewer, I want my attention on the images you have on the site, not drawn away by the bold colors or font of the text.
The text colours are an issue - originally the text and headings were to be the same colour, but the colour was too dark, and does not render the same in different type sizes. They are the same hue, but they render differently in different browsers and in different degrees of lightness.
Paul,
Keep it going, it will be a wonderful site.
As you describe your style as a " fairly eclectic photographic style" I think the best thing to keep in mind while you design your site is to keep it as simple and elegant as possible.
Make the images the MAIN focus of the site and don't let any part of the text or background compete with them for the viewers attention. By doing this you can mix a variety of photographic styles and subject matter into one site.
Good examples are Kirk Gittings or Huntington Whiterell's sites. They mix fine art, commercial, color and black & white all under one site but each compliments the other.
All the elements should work to support the images. It is difficult to tell at the moment as your galleries are still under construction and I suspect that once these are up and running you ( and us) will have a better feel for what the overall site will look like.
Keep it up. I bookmarked the site and look forward to seeing more of your work.
Eric
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks