Comments
On May 13, 2006 3:11 AM Stamatis said:I like the old vintage style but I am not sure about the skulls.
On May 13, 2006 5:08 AM Anatoli Papirovski said:Nice? Hell yes. Usable? Hell no.
I only discovered the navigation on this site the second time I went there, the first time I just saw the main page and then I got to the contact page, though the fact that I had a question mark as a cursor when I hovered that phone number didn't help much either.
The information page shouldn't make me click three times to get to the info I want.
Also why can't I increase my font-size? Is that forbidden now, how hard would it be to make that text column expand? :-\ The justificated text looks horrible with that inconsistent spacing.
In the end you're trying to sell something here, but it doesn't work, it just doesn't... sites are not just about being pretty, they're about delivering the content and this one, at least for me, didn't.
When it come to code, it's OK I suppose, but I would prefer if those onclick events were dynamically attached, no need for them to be directly in the code. You could also put those pieces into an unordered list, since that's what it is.
On May 13, 2006 10:48 AM James Hannen said:I think it looks great, good job! The code looks clean and fairly accessible. It's pretty SEO friendly too, which makes this a great all round site. I love it.
On May 13, 2006 12:06 PM Freddy said:I like it. And I'm just going to have to do this.
Anatoli.
You only discoverd the navigation, because you need glasses
The questionmark. Do you even care.
So what, you have to click three times. You had to type a whole load of negative nonsense about a site, so how come you can't click three times?
Ever tried increasing the font-size on
your portfolio? No? I though as much.
Ever tried making a background strecht? Yes? Did it work? No? I thought as much.Now moving onto the justified text. Look at the background, look at it. It looks a lot like a newspaper or something alike to me. Now why don't you get a newspaper and take a look at the columns. You will notice justified text, I guarantee it.
And about that pretty bit? Well my bad for saying, but you think sites should be rubbish to look at?
Ok and finally, I can agree with you on this bit, those onclick events should have been attached dynamicaly. But that's the only thing I can find wrong in his code, that's actually THE only thing I thought was wrong.
And now that we are talking about code anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't presentation supposed to be seperate from the markup? Then perhaps you should remove those width and height declarations attached to images in your html.
Again I say, I like this site. It's good for it's target audience. A job well done I'd say!
Cheers
On May 13, 2006 12:41 PM Chris Gwynne said:Anatoli Papirovski, take a look at your own website before giving criticism on others... do you often spew this BS to your clients?
"He's also one of the world's leading experts on cross-browser CSS"
... claims who, you? Google has barely heard of you, nobody has ever heard of you. And you're a leading expert? You're funny, I'll give you that!
On May 13, 2006 1:48 PM Tarun Hari said:Hey,
Thanks for the nice comments and criticism. I have changed the way the thumbnails open now to not use that ugly javascript and have onload events.
The reasoning behind the question mark over the telephone number was due to the fact it's an enquiry phone number so it suited the content.
As for width and height being presentational... I've always been on the fence about this. But having it in the HTML prepares the browser for the images that are loading. Remember, these are content images. Not design images, there are no images in the HTML that make up the design, simply content. So I don't think this is a major issue.
As for the nav comment, it stands out to me and every other person Ive asked about it. Its pretty self explainatory that it's a navigation.
The only thing I can agree on is the lack of scaling text...
Thanks guys.
- On May 13, 2006 2:23 PM Anatoli Papirovski said:
Why has this turned into criticizing me and using cheap insults? Am I not entitled to my own opinion? I'm not coming here and criticizing you guys when I don't agree with you.
You can increase text-size on my page without any problems, it's still usable. On his site, not so much. The content overflows. Stretching background? Hell yeah, or should I say "repeat the background" so you can actually understand it, or even repeat the color dammit, if it overflows.
I also never said I don't want the site to be pretty, what I said is, that design is about more than just pretty things, It's about selling the product/service to the customer and this site didn't sell it to me. Am I at fault? Hell no, I'm just a user who left the site without discovering half its functions and not being interested in the service offered.
For your information Chris, do a search on "xhtml css expert", "cross-browser css expert" (in reference to your quote), and many more. I'm the first actual person to come up for "xhtml css coder" (sixth overall, I believe). I've coded over 70+ websites, I think I know what I'm talking about.
You would also probably find interesting that I was the first person in the world to come up with vertical centering within a div for an element of unknown height—I replicated the functionality of tables, using CSS. I also came-up with a method for replacing text which is accessible with images off and doesn't require extra mark-up element. I was mentioned on all sites, including Dave Shea's mezzoblue, Roger Johansson's 456 Berea Street, and many more.
If you don't know me, it doesn't mean I'm not an expert... but that's not the point of this whole discussion, is it? My portfolio has nothing to do with the fact that I didn't feel comfortable using the site... and as such I'm entitled to my own opinion. If I don't feel comfortable shopping at a certain store that you like, will you come to spank me for being a bad boy?
On May 14, 2006 5:44 PM Danny Halarewich said:I feel the site design works well for its intended market. This website is about selling an image and lifestyle. It certainly does that in my opinion.
I saw the navigation almost immediately and its obviously unique, which most sites are lacking now days.One thing that does need to be "fixed" however is that the content area needs to be flexible. Fixed height on content areas is just not acceptable if it is to be showcased.
Great work!
On May 14, 2006 5:48 PM Martin said:Navigation is tough to find. Advice .... on the navigation, use background images and have the hover image be apart of the original nav image, just reposition it. You will lose that flicker on initial hover.
On May 14, 2006 10:41 PM dross said:A tooltip on the phone area would probably help resolve.
Nice site. The text scaling does need to be fixed. You may end up losing the underlines though. But, with some extra work it can probably work with the lines.
On May 16, 2006 12:47 PM Chris Robinson said:Your in desperate need of some no preload rollovers for your main navigation to get rid of the flicker.
If your not familar with this design practice take a look it's very easy to do.
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.