Please assess a web site for me

[RonStewart]

I spent last week learning a new software package - "Microsoft Expression Web" and enough CSS to get started. Expression Web is buggy, and does not always work as advertised, but is much cheaper than Dreamweaver.

 

Then I built a new web site for a dog club. Now that I have published it, I think that it looks garish. While I was developing it, I though the colour scheme was fine. Perhaps I was staring at it too long. I chose the colours and created the background images and buttons instead of using a template.

 

Would you please have a look at http://cardigancorgi.ca and give me your assessment of the colours, and anything else that grabs your attention as needing improving?

[Traveler1]

Had a look and think the colors are great and make the page much easier for these old eyes to read than is usually the case. I wouldn't change a thing.

[Twisties]

Looks fine Ron.

 

 

[Selden]

Green seems an odd color theme for a dog site, but it's not garish or unpleasant. I'm viewing from a 10.1" netbook, which is a good test of how well a site works on a small screen (1024 x 600), and you would have less crowding if you increase your page width (from 800 to 1000 pixels?).

 

With my browser (Google Chrome on Linux) the default font style for each unvisited button is bold; but when you click on a button, it changes to normal (and doesn't revert when you go to another subpage). Normal as the default and bold as the font style of the button for the current page would help navigation by giving the user more context; i.e., "You are HERE; this should be pretty easy to control through CSS.

 

As someone who has been wearing glasses for a long long time, I appreciate your use of readable font sizes. I like the alignment of the CCCC logo, which must have taken quite a bit of experimentation with padding and condensing spaces between letters to get everything to line up, and by making it a graphic, you don't have to worry about different browsers screwing up the way it looks.

[Bob Palin]

Definitely too much green but not garish. Wider! People using 800x600 screens probably won't wait for the site to download over their 300 baud modem anyway.

 

I make lots of web sites and have no artistic ability at all, I really like this book The Principles of Beautiful Web Design by Jason Beard.

[Mike]

A couple of specific things I saw that you might want to check out:

 

-I noted that some of the buttons appear bolded and others do not.

-Also when you click on "Specialty," the "2010" button appears partially on top of that button; you might want to see if you can move it down a click or two.

 

As a general note, I think you've done a good job. If you could find a way to move the text on the respective pages to a position to the right of the navigation buttons, instead of below them, I think it would make the website a bit more user-friendly.

 

I think I'd tone down the colors, or at least change one of the greens to a complementary color (maybe tan?). To my eye, the use of only green shades is a little off-putting.

 

I know how hard this can be . . . I'm the webmaster of my HOA's website, and it's a pain in the neck. Things never turn out quite the way I envision it when I'm editing.

 

 

[tallman]

Too many pictures of women in bikinis.

Cancel my subscription.

[RonStewart]

Mike, what browser and version are you using? Could you post a screenshot? I have used recent versions of Opera, Firefox, IE and Chrome, and none give what you are describing on your two points about button positions.

 

Yeah. Too much green. I think that my eyes had beome overwhelmed. I will experiment with a transition with dark green as the back-background and tan (I think I will use the colour that surrounds our avatars to the left of this page)as the paper. Means redoing the CCCC logo (pain), buttons (pain) and the favicon.ico (minor annoyance). Sigh. It will give me more options for link colours, though - a definite good thing.

 

Width - hey, I widened it from 640! Seriously, Killer, many of my users are on 28,800 modems, and my wife had a 800x600 monitor until last year. But I think I will go to 1000 and see if I get complaints.

 

This will have to wait for a couple of weeks.

 

Thanks for the input fellows.

 

(Oh, and Selden, I still haven't figured out what to do on the smartphone issue, but will let you know.>

[Selden]

(Oh, and Selden, I still haven't figured out what to do on the smartphone issue, but will let you know.>

Twaren't me; I'm using a 10.1" netbook, 1024x600. I didn't win an iPad this week...

[Smoky]

Ron,

 

Looks fine to me, opens fast, I don't mind the green, looks good on my little note-pad 10" screen. The links open fast.

 

Don

[RonStewart]

I think this is better:

 

Of course, the logo and buttons need work. But for proof-of-concept, it will do. I'll fiddle with a slightly darker tan - Thor is not the first who finds overly light backgrounds to be hard on the eyes.

[motoguy128]

I'd use soemthing more eye popping for the lgoo and background, without beign too crazy.

 

I'd do more with the "logo" image from the T-shirt with the Griffin and the Corgi silloette. You might consider using soem colors on the background that tie together with the color scheme of your groups patch/logo.

 

Never hurts to be consistent with branding.

[Bob Palin]

That looks much better, I don't think the background is too light at all - books have white pages!

[RonStewart]

That looks much better, I don't think the background is too light at all - books have white pages!

But books aren't backlit.

 

I have uploaded a quick-and-dirty fix on the colour scheme. Width will have to wait. Buttons need further modification, but they are okay for now. Font settings for links still need consideration.

 

Motoguy, I have been accused of being conservative before: I have an aversion to flash. You are right about the branding - the two logos have been around for a long time, with no resolution. I think I will bring that to the president's attention and ask him for direction. The American club site cardigancorgis.com uses a gryphon in its header, and I would like our brand to be distinct from theirs. The Welsh flag is garish. In a few years, when it is time for another makeover, I might go that route, but not right now.

[Mike]

Mike, what browser and version are you using? Could you post a screenshot? I have used recent versions of Opera, Firefox, IE and Chrome, and none give what you are describing on your two points about button positions.

 

Ron--

 

It's an ancient version of Internet Explorer (6.0). The attachment shows what I'm talking about (sorry, but it's downsized quite a bit).

[RonStewart]

Bugger. The curse of Cascading Style Sheets. They are supposed to be the New Standard, but of course, they are only recently adopted, and older browsers obviously choke on them.

 

Bugger.

Bugger.

Bugger.

[Mike]

I'm not sure I'd get too worried about it then . . . there can't be more than about a half-dozen of us still using this old a browser.

[Mike]

Just opened it in Netscape and there are none of the issues I saw in IE 6.0.

[Bob Palin]

Bugger. The curse of Cascading Style Sheets. They are supposed to be the New Standard, but of course, they are only recently adopted, and older browsers obviously choke on them.

 

Bugger.

Bugger.

Bugger.

IE6 is the curse of all web developers, it's a piece of junk as far as standards go, why people insist on continuing to use it is beyond me, IE8 is actually pretty reasonable.

[RonStewart]

So leave it be, Bob?

[Selden]

Nothing wrong with avoiding flash and gratuitous decoration. My deity for web design is Patrick Lynch, whose Web Style Guide is a classic.

 

I wouldn't call CSS "new" although, it's certainly true that Microsoft was late to the party in supporting it properly. MSIE is a horrible trap, but you really constrain yourself if you code to meet its limitations. A lot of web sites put a "This site works best with ****" and provide a link to what they think is the better browser.

 

I'm still lukewarm to the background with the graduated borders. If you are committed to keeping that feature, it should be possible to define the upper and lower graphics as percentages of screen width, which would greatly reduce issues with screens of varying sizes.

[Bob Palin]

I wouldn't make changes to accommodate IE6 unless it was needed to add some important functionality to the site. If it is totally unusable you can detect the browser version and put a simple list of links in there plus a note telling them to upgrade their browser.

[lvmyks]

I was very inpressed. And learned about the bread. I think for a novice with a Love for dogs you did a Great Job. Take the advice and YOU make it better to your liking. I hope your club members give you a pat on the back.

[Jerry Johnston]

Looks great to me - using Firefox ver 3.6.3

[VinnyR11]

Looks very good. Simple, fast, easy to read. Using Firefox 3.6.3.

 

Upcoming events, "Herding Trial" is a dead link.

 

On THIS screen it would be much better if the "Links and files" containing forms and other stuff opened in a new tab. Same with breeders' websites.

 

Overall, nice job.

[RonStewart]

Thanks, Vinny. It took me less than a minute to fix the broken link (facepalm).

 

I will consider tabs and the other suggestions for the next revision, but I am satisfied that it is good enough for the next few months. I have put in enough time into the project for now.

 

By the way, I can't claim to be a novice. I think my first web site went up in 1994.

 

I thank you all. This web site is the best brain-trust I know of.

[sgendler]

Bugger. The curse of Cascading Style Sheets. They are supposed to be the New Standard, but of course, they are only recently adopted, and older browsers obviously choke on them.

 

Bugger.

Bugger.

Bugger.

 

Do not, under any circumstances, accommodate an IE 6 user unless the site is absolutely unusable from that browser (and even then, think long and hard about if you REALLY need them to see your content). Their numbers are diminishing quickly, and the sooner they are all encouraged to upgrade from that buggy, totally non-compliant, lame excuse for a web browser, the better.

[yabadabapal]

Ron Ive been looking at your site for a couple days now, and I must preface my opinions so that you understand I am not a web designer.

 

I like the concept.

Its an easy read.

The one thing that effected me is that as I change from page to page, all the pages look the same to the point that sometimes I wan not sure which page I was on. I think some varying color identification from page to page might really help people know where they are.

Additionally on each page being the same color, the font size and or color might be expressed a bit.

My suggestions are intended to effect a sort of comfort zone for the viewer, who inevitably will like one page and its subject more than another and with a color scheme attached to a particular page, it creates a sense of being home, or in other words, a favorite place or favorite page of the viewer that has some distinction from the other pages. Hope this helps. Boy am I long winded or what.

[RonStewart]

Thanks Bobby,

 

Simple navigation is one of my goals, and it is as imprtant to know where you are as where you are going. And the display of linking text really needs a rethink.

 

I am going to let it rest for a couple of months. I will have to post some important dog-show results in mid-June, and I will give it some thought then.

[AviP]

[rant]I hate anything and everything Microsoft and that includes IE, XP, Office, Expression, Mobile, etc. [/rant]

 

The border blurring is the only thing I disliked on the site. It hurts my eyes and I've never worn glasses, so it's not me.