Critique / Design help

S

SilverMK3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2002
Messages
1,346
So I've been asked to help re-design a site for a friend. I'm doing it as a favor for $500 flat.

Anyway, I want to get this thing out of the way as quickly as possible but still do a decent job and make it easy for them to maintain without me.

The original site is at http://www.onestepsystems.com
My redesign-in-progress is located at http://www.3ntreri.net/sites/onestep

Any design ideas / suggestions on making it look a little more "professional" as well as making it easy to maintain? The server supports PHP and I'm fairly comfortable using it; unfortunately it doesn't have MySQL installed, though.

Feedback?
 
First, it is a drastic improvement from the old site. I like the new layout a lot.

You certainly should consider putting your styles into a seperate stylesheet, though.

Also, [disclaimer] I'm not a big fan of Javascript [/disclaimer], but it would be nice to have some sort of alternative method of navigation. Many people browse without JS enabled and they would not be able to navigate this site as effectively as those with it on.

I have a hard time reading the slogan in the image. In fact, I didn't even notice there was one until I looked again. Other people may think the same.

Adding title attributes to your links will greatly help users that disable CSS (e.g. browsing with Lynx or similar).

Finally, why did you choose to use a table for the navigation bar? Your CSS skills seem capable enough to convert that into a style-friendly system.

Sorry to seem nit-picky, but that's peer review. Overall, you're doing a great job, it just needs a little polish.

My User Agent is Firefox 1.0.4 on FreeBSD 5-STABLE.
 
people pay $500 for that? does that include a backend or what? Jesus.

Looks good :)
 
It may not seem like much to do, but it is a rather technical skill most people don't have. Therefore most people are willing to pay the big bucks since they can't do it themselves.
 
G-daddy said:
people pay $500 for that? does that include a backend or what? Jesus.

Looks good :)
Click to expand...

I've done simpler sites than that for more, but the reason for the price was the short turnaround time (1-2 days).
 
Hehe. the $500 includes finishing the template, installing an easy to use CMS like Coranto, and migrating all of the existing content to the new template. I'd normally charge more than that, but its for a friend's business. I hope to have everything done and hand over control by next weekend.

Smokey:
Thanks for the feedback. I'll definately make the CSS and JS external, as well as putting the entire nav system in a separate include file - I've just got them all on the same page so that its easy to modify on the fly while under development; fewer files to upload every time I make a change ;).

I'm going to re-create the header image with clearer text and less fire... apparently they want to prevent fires, what's up with that? lol. What do you suggest for making the site more non-javascript-enabled-browser friendly?

I used a table for the main navigation elements becuase i was having trouble positioning a DIV with hidden DIVs inside of it. Its a cop-out, I know, but it still validates. lol.

N64Man:
You saw what happened when they let their in-house programmer work on the site. lol. You're right, few people understand the delicate balance between technical aptitude and design aesthetic.
 
Since you are aiming for compatibility with both the 'fully compliant' and 'horribly braindamaged' browser sets, I would suggest this article. It covers how to create an aesthetically pleasing, intuitive navigation system in pure CSS (for those of us who browse with the former class of agent) and augment said system with JS for compatibility with 'That Other Browser'. Note that it also degrades beautifully to a nested list, should CSS be disabled. I hope the article offers some ideas, if not a verbatim method of accomplishing a task.
 
$500 is a cheap price for any site, of course this is a 1-2 day turnaround, so I'd say that's about right for 8-12 hours of work. But that's just me.
 
First the new site box is gigantic, and im guessing 1024x768. I dont know if it has changed but id think that 800x600 is still the most common resolution used. Some of your viewers will have to scroll now. Im guessing the old site is 640x480 and appears tiny on my screen. Id suggest that 800x600 is a good middle ground.

I kinda like the old side navigation of the old one. There is not that many choices available to the user so having them all there at first is a little easier IMO, although some books will say the exact opposite. Since i really like the top graphics, espeacially the logo which appears nice and sharp, I would have cut out the navigation from the top, which would shrink the width considerably and bring it closer to 800x600.

I applaud you for going the standards compliant way, I just wish everyone would

Disclaimer: No expert here, just highly critical, and all in good faith.

Good Luck,
debaser_
 
mikeblas said:
1024 x 768 is the most common, according to W3Schools.com
Click to expand...


They say their data comes from their own log files. Users frequenting a site like w3c are in all probability more experienced users.

One thing i did overlook was that lcd's are standard with most computers these days, and have 1024x768 or higher native resolutions. (at least for 17inch or greater displays) Users who purchase their computers and do not change their settings will finally have something higher than 800x600, which is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top