[tommy]

OK, this isn't really a photo critique more of a site critique.
So... I'm having a redesign of my photography site (been meaning to do it for ages as what's there at the mo is not great) and wanted to get a bit of feedback.

So the site so far is here: Tom Beith Photography

It needs the flash 8 plug in (for text rendering). I know it's flash and not everyone likes flash, especially search engines, but I'll get an accessible html version built once I'm happy with everything. Content wise, I still need to tweak the gallery images (the colour is a bit off on some and I need to cull/swap some of the poorer ones) and I might add an about section...

So, any comments good or bad will be greatly received. And any problems viewing it - let me know.

Ta all

[orangepeel]

Overall it's nice an clean. The colours are simple and more importantly it's not a colour riot

Here are some specific points I noted.

1) By insisting on Flash 8, you are limiting your visitors. Flash 8 is a bit on the new side. Have you made sure it's easy to install/update if flash isn't installed?

Macromedia - Macromedia Flash Player : Version Penetration

2) You'll need to look at how your flash is embedded on the site. Due to some retarded software patents the old method doesn't work very well in that the user must click the flash object before they can interact with it.

What I do is: -

in the HTML where I want the flash object I put: -

<p><script src="js/map.js"></script></p>

Then the content of map.js is as follows: -

// JavaScript Document
document.write('<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="800" height="439">');
document.write('    <param name="movie" value="dmap.swf?configParam=location.xml">');
document.write('    <param name="quality" value="high">');
document.write('    <param name="wmode" value="transparent">');
document.write('    <param name="configParam" value="location.xml">');
document.write('    <embed src="dmap.swf?configParam=location.xml" width="800" height="439" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" configparam="location.xml"></embed>');
document.write('</object>');

This fixes the problem completly.


3) You use multiple (2 i think) fonts in the site. This is generally known as "a bad thing"(TM) You might want to narrow them down to just the single one. I noticed the info page is in a completly different font from the rest of the site.

If this is simply a text frame loading an external HTML document then be aware that it's possible to use CSS to provide formatting in the document.

4) In terms of the gallery, it's quite clumsy to navigate. You might want to add thumbnails or a scroller so you can go directly to an image.


Sorry, don't mean to sound negative. Hopefully my crit also comes with reasonable suggestions...

/me ducks.

[orangepeel]

Forgot to mention. The next & previous buttons on the galley can't be repeat clicked without moving the mouse slightly. If you manage to get round this problem, lemme know how. It's been a bane for me too.

I "think" it's got something to do with other controls (components) being on the page but i'm not 100% sure. Never managed to fix it either way...

[tommy]

Cheers for the comments...

1.)The flash 8 thing... yep still playing with the design so it may change to v7 - the main thing I gain from v8 is the text rendering, never been entirely happy with v7 performance. If I stick with 8 though i'll put a detect or a download link on the initial page (the one there now was a 10 minute lunch hour job).

2.) Waaaay over my head. I am but a lowly designer... can you explain that bit in layman terms?

3.) Fonts are still work in progress. The info section just uses a scrolling component at the mo so the text needs to be dynamic and hence renders differently to the rest. Can't say I subscribe to your " bad thing"(TM)" theory though.

4.) The gallery is that way through choice - mainly to get maximum space for the photos. I did something silimar for a big post-prod house not so long back and kinda likes the simplicity of it.


Your last bit about having to move the mouse to re-click. Doesn't work that way on my mac - what you viewing on? It's not summut i've ever come across.

And, really, thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. And no need to /duck - feedback/critisism is all part of the job.

[stepheno]

I'll leave the technical comments to OP I am but a lowly Dreamweaver user. But from a visitors point of view I like the site, it's clean, neat and tidy and the images are atrracting. Any negatives? Well, I think the front page is a bit too clean, why should I have to click again to get in ( you might lose a customer). Secondly, and this is purely personal, I don't like being told what I need to have to view a site. But hey....who am to criticise, it's a very professional looking site.

[tommy]

Originally Posted by stepheno

Any negatives? Well, I think the front page is a bit too clean, why should I have to click again to get in ( you might lose a customer).

You mean the splash page thing? Yeah - just a place holder at the mo. I'm not keen on them, will probably put a detect/divert page in its place or make it a html/flash option page.

Originally Posted by stepheno

Secondly, and this is purely personal, I don't like being told what I need to have to view a site.

Ha, that's interesting. Have done a lot of user testing on big commercial sites but have never had that comment before.

Originally Posted by stepheno

But hey....who am to criticise, it's a very professional looking site.

Thanks very much. And you're more than welcome to criticise.

[tommy]

oh yeah... the site also needs a preloader... when I have time.

[Dave]

Would agree with other comments, especially re Gallery that either needs thumbnails to start, or sub galleries, to allow users to get to more specific shots.

Also your INFO page really is a Q&A page at the mo. I would try & differentiate more clearly between the question & answer

Overall though very good

[tommy]

Originally Posted by Dave

Also your INFO page really is a Q&A page at the mo. I would try & differentiate more clearly between the question & answer

Noted, and changed (but not uploaded yet)

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by tommy

2.) Waaaay over my head. I am but a lowly designer... can you explain that bit in layman terms?

well you won't notice it unless it's win xp + ie6 or win + opera 9

It's to do with the way objects are placed on the page. The method used was copyrighted so MS had to change how the browser handles them (so did opera). This all kicked off in April this year when MS lost their court case regarding this copyright issue.

The effect for the end user is that they must click the flash object once before it'll respond to their input.

You may not see the issue on your system. Might be best to get a fully patched and up to date xp with ie6 to do any final testing. it is unfortunatly the target audience.

Originally Posted by tommy

Your last bit about having to move the mouse to re-click. Doesn't work that way on my mac - what you viewing on? It's not summut i've ever come across.

And, really, thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. And no need to /duck - feedback/critisism is all part of the job.

yes, now that the old grey matter is sparking, this is an opera thing - i seem to remember ie and firefox where fine. so no matter about that then.

[tommy]

Originally Posted by orangepeel

It's to do with the way objects are placed on the page. The method used was copyrighted so MS had to change how the browser handles them (so did opera)....

Ah got ya - I know what you mean. Cheers.

[asd]

First off exelllent photography, probably the slickest flash site i have been on, very fast loading(on my 2meg connection anyway) compared to a lot of flash driven stuff. You have set your stall out nicely and just needs some tweeking. Wish i had an outlet like this forum when i set up my own landscaping business a few years back, could of saved myself some time and money. Your homepage is not cluttered and easy to navigate, always a good idea for clients/ potential clients who aren't that internet savvy.

Your FAQ page Tom clearly explains your working methods and approach well, but it might be a good idea to know a bit more of your background and how you got into photography etc, and maybe a few lines of your passion for photography.Maybe an idea to have a photo page of you with your photographic kit(could get a friend to photograph you in action photographing a wedding so customers have an idea of how you work. Like the other guys have said splitting your galleries up into thumbnail catagories(maybe start with pre wedding bride getting ready shots , through to the candid night stuff, this might convince them to go for the full day package if they see the night do material in order of the days shooting. At the moment with the slideshow format, most of the night do shots are at the end and most people will have given up looking after a dozen clicks or so(even though your work is very good people have short attention spans, and people planning a wedding are rushing trying to get everything organized so wont spend ages on one site) but you have already said you are moving to thumbnails soon so thats no problem. Well thats just my two pennies worth as a punter. Keep up the good work, at the end of the day its the photos that speak for themselves, and yours are excellent, and word of mouth is the best form of advertising.(from personal experience).and it's free

all the best scott(asd)

[tommy]

Thanks scott, great feedback (not that the other folks' wasn't!)

Right... what I think I'll do is add a bio/about page and split the gallery, as suggested, probably into smaller named sections. I'm not sure if I'm going the thumbnail route yet tho - I've run the big-photo-no-thumbnail gallery past a few couples and it was mostly well received - 'too many images' was the only negative, but that was balanced by 'good to see lots of images'. Hmmm.

[dod]

I was going to reply yesterday but got caught up in a phone call and never got back to it. For what they're worth

1. don't like getting to a site and then being told click to enter.
2. like stepheno being told what I need to use to view the site puts me off, means I'm never sure if I'm missing out on something.
3. Photography's great but scrolling through 60+ images was quite slow for me on a 2MB connection
4. Overall feel is very professional, clean, slick, reassuring, like someone who really knows what they're doing.

[orangepeel]

I agree with you on the thumbnails, they do take up a lot of room. however you could use a dro